Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Go vote!

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1vtp6zikYXgaMJr3M7-ESFs5yH_zMDPJQ19BhsiYImS4/viewform

Edit - Link to results:

https://www.frontlinegaming.org/2016/02/29/signals-from-the-frontline-413/

There's a thread for this already

This is also an appropriate subforum for this, although I think the 40k general gets more traffic overall compared to tourney discussions

Well that is what I get for sleep deprivation and not checking the other subforum

Mods you can just lock this up. No need for clutter

Thanks for catching that - but for now I think it's OK to have a thread up in both forums, at least while the poll is active!

I have voted in the poll and really liked the wording of the questions this time around, very neutral! Only thing to improve is that when you're done, it links back to take the poll again which probably should not be encouraged!

As I said in the other post, I plan on sending a message to the ITC guys (not sure if I go through the rules question submissions or just E-mail frankie though...) about getting an option on the next pole to decrease the detachment allotment to 2. I felt that it was weirdly missing from this poll, as they talked about detachment limits and lowering the points scale but not lowering the detachment limits to go with the possible point drop.

Well the poll does address it in two questions, but it's to remain the same or not, and if increasing it to go to 4 or unlimited.

It looks like they wanted to keep questions to only two answers this time, which I like as it will indicate a clear majority for those who vote. I can't really see events going down to two detachments in this edition...

I could. It's really not hard with decurions being a thing, it just helps put a stop to lists like SpiderSpam and Super Friends who are the main abusers.

2 source can still do spider spam easily. My spider list was 2 source and the Inquisitor was a third. Could easily play the list as 2 source but lose an Inquisitor which isn't a big deal.

I cant wait to see the results of this! I want to know do players vote to gain a competitive advantage or naw.

 CKO wrote:
I cant wait to see the results of this! I want to know do players vote to gain a competitive advantage or naw.

I can answer that question for you...

"Some players do, other players don't"

Its like people can be different and don't all fit into one single preconceived notion

 CrownAxe wrote:

 CKO wrote:
I cant wait to see the results of this! I want to know do players vote to gain a competitive advantage or naw.

I can answer that question for you...

"Some players do, other players don't"

Its like people can be different and don't all fit into one single preconceived notion

....how long have you been sitting on this information ?!?

WTF?

At the end of the poll was the option to "Submit another response." This is the same thing that happened with the last ITC poll where one D-Bag said he voted 50 different times.

then they would have 50 responses all from the same email and cut 49 out

 doktor_g wrote:
WTF?

At the end of the poll was the option to "Submit another response." This is the same thing that happened with the last ITC poll where one D-Bag said he voted 50 different times.

They track that. Even if you sign up with a different email, your IP address is the same. If you use an IP address scrambler and use a different registered email each time, well congrats. But it might not shock anyone that if FLG saw a bunch of responses that were all submitted within minutes of each other with the same or extremely similar responses, they would know what's up.

Even if you changed some or most of the responses, the reason behind you doing that type of process would be to get a single (or a few) questions affected in the way that you want. So again, in a vote that is more or less 50/50 (for a contentious issue) if you see that 50 responses in a row have the same answer to even just one question, it's a very clear indicator that someone is gaming that system. Because the odds of that happening are (1/2)^50. It's a virtual certainty that someone is tampering, and google makes these patterns easy to spot with how they arrange their polls.

Truth be told, though, it's a fair question as to why the option to vote again exists....but I suppose it sort of has to since there is no "sign in" except for the email, so you have to allow anyone to start the poll.

The one flaw in that assumption is that it basically necessitates a judgement call that a topic should be 50/50 since if the gaming was significant enough, it no longer would be.

 doktor_g wrote:
WTF?

At the end of the poll was the option to "Submit another response." This is the same thing that happened with the last ITC poll where one D-Bag said he voted 50 different times.

yeah, saw that too

 FTGTEvan wrote:
The one flaw in that assumption is that it basically necessitates a judgement call that a topic should be 50/50 since if the gaming was significant enough, it no longer would be.

\


Yes and no. I mean, you could have a vote swing big time (say 66 percent or more vote a specific way). But even then, (2/3)^50 is a really, really small percentage. It's .0000000014. You think it's a coincidence when the sample size is a few thousand voters, or is there maybe something fishy there? Really not hard to figure out

 FTGTEvan wrote:
The one flaw in that assumption is that it basically necessitates a judgement call that a topic should be 50/50 since if the gaming was significant enough, it no longer would be.

Except they also compare the votes to registered players in ITC. So if the vote is drastically off from people who attended events that's also an indicator of something afoot.

The last poll actually included those numbers as well and it was similar to the at large vote. In fact the guy claiming he voted 50 times was either lying or didn't realize his votes were blocked.

It's funny when people say the questions are intentionally biased because if you guys were more conspiracy theorists or big brother it's out to get me you'd realize since the vote isn't transparent at who voted you would wonder if FLG was really anti tau they would rig the vote not the questions. I dont think this happens but the 40k community has plenty of nutso.

It should not have the link to go back and vote again. Oh well.

Would have liked to have seen the other Tau votes - I was under the understanding the Tau rules issues would be revoted post LVO, such as the Coordinated Firepower change, the change to the Piranha FireStream wing coming/going, etc. It seems like it's just a vote to further-nerf the Piranha formation (whether bringing a unit back at full strength means bringing back dead piranhas or not) and a vote on the Ghostkeel issue.

Oh well, at least the points size thing is being voted, will be interested to see how that turns out.

I hope ghostkeel ruling remains the same tbh. It's still very powerful.

I think overall they did a good job .

I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

 Frozocrone wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

But come to think of it, that should also include the coming/going of the Piranhas that wasn't voted, and the ability of a regular riptide to take an Earth Caste Pilot Array

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I hope ghostkeel ruling remains the same tbh. It's still very powerful.

I think overall they did a good job .

You do know that counter-measure only affects 1 unit at a time and not the entire phase, meaning they can use all of them in one turn, 390 points should get to use a special rule 3 times. They are equip with a small blast melta shot or 6 str 7 shots, why is this very powerful? Emphasis being on "very".

This also raises the question are the polls a weaken other armies button, a rules issue, or nerfing tool? All of these things have a good and bad side because you are relying on the voters to do the right thing and we as humans don't necessarily do what is right.

Target wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

But come to think of it, that should also include the coming/going of the Piranhas that wasn't voted, and the ability of a regular riptide to take an Earth Caste Pilot Array

The piranha question is included but not the hunter contingent.

@Frozo: Yes, they did have a knee jerk vote on the hunter contingent within a week or two iirc of the codex coming out during which I seriously doubt most folks who voted had even seen a tau model let alone actually tested the rule they were over nerfing. The rule needed clarification to trim possible abuse (there were some crazy interpretations of it) but not a complete rewrite that is effectively (but not theoretically) permanent. They should at least allow 30 days of time to pass for folks to actually see if there is an issue in play or at least consider it instead of putting up a biased worded poll just because Frankie had a pair of good games in the week post release. Eh, whatever, they're at least improving with the pirahnas and their knee jerk reaction was just temporary.

 warboss wrote:

Target wrote:

 Frozocrone wrote:

 warboss wrote:
I thought they said they were reconsidering their rules change nerf to the Tau codex decurion? I didn't see that one on there.

No, just the ones that were implemented for LVO.

ITC already did a vote on the Hunter Contingent.

But come to think of it, that should also include the coming/going of the Piranhas that wasn't voted, and the ability of a regular riptide to take an Earth Caste Pilot Array

The piranha question is included but not the hunter contingent.

@Frozo: Yes, they did have a knee jerk vote on the hunter contingent within a week or two iirc of the codex coming out during which I seriously doubt most folks who voted had even seen a tau model let alone actually tested the rule they were over nerfing. The rule needed clarification to trim possible abuse (there were some crazy interpretations of it) but not a complete rewrite that is effectively (but not theoretically) permanent. They should at least allow 30 days of time to pass for folks to actually see if there is an issue in play or at least consider it instead of putting up a biased worded poll just because Frankie had a pair of good games in the week post release. Eh, whatever, they're at least improving with the pirahnas and their knee jerk reaction was just temporary.

The Piranha question he is referring to isn't up for vote. ITC decided pre-LVO to nerf Firestream, disallowing them from entering and leaving board in the same turn. Instead of offering a re-vote they included 2 possible nerfs (which will almost certainly take effect). BS to the extreme.

I absolutely do not understand the issue on the Corsairs. - "The Eldar Corsairs Reckless Abandon special rule allows them to move after making a shooting attack. Does this apply to overwatch?"

Reckless Abandon states (page 154, IA11, 2nd Edition) states "A unit which includes only models with this special rule that fires at an enemy unit within 12" of itself may make an immediate move of 6" after all the effects of the shooting attack have been resolved (emphasis mine). If the unit has the type Jet Pack Infantry or Eldar Jetbike, this move is increased to 6+d6". This move cannot place the unit into close combat, within 1" of any enemy unit, or to be used to move closer to any unit targeted by their shooting attacks (emphasis mine).

BRB (page 535 [I have a digital version]) says under Resolve Overwatch that "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack(emphasis mine) (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on."

Overwatch is a normal shooting attack. The Reckless Abandon rule specfically lays out who (a unit composed entirely with the rule), what (a move after shooting), and when (a shooting attack at a unit within 12"). It's a shooting attack. The rules for Overwatch states speficially that it is a shooting attack. This question seeks to change a core rule of the game (that Overwatch is a shooting attack). Why?

In a game where you have now a giant 50 dog unit with IC's that can charge turn 1 that have a footprint that covers the entire board, or a ThunderwolfStar that has 50 attacks and auto-passes Hit and Run with a 2+ Rerollable Cover Save that is immune to psychic powers, is it that game-breaking to have a unit be able to avoid being charged? Seriously?

 djdarknoise wrote:
I absolutely do not understand the issue on the Corsairs. - "The Eldar Corsairs Reckless Abandon special rule allows them to move after making a shooting attack. Does this apply to overwatch?"

Reckless Abandon states (page 154, IA11, 2nd Edition) states "A unit which includes only models with this special rule that fires at an enemy unit within 12" of itself may make an immediate move of 6" after all the effects of the shooting attack have been resolved (emphasis mine). If the unit has the type Jet Pack Infantry or Eldar Jetbike, this move is increased to 6+d6". This move cannot place the unit into close combat, within 1" of any enemy unit, or to be used to move closer to any unit targeted by their shooting attacks (emphasis mine).

BRB (page 535 [I have a digital version]) says under Resolve Overwatch that "An Overwatch attack is resolved like a normal shooting attack(emphasis mine) (albeit one resolved in the enemy’s Assault phase) and uses all the normal rules for range, line of sight, cover saves and so on."

Overwatch is a normal shooting attack. The Reckless Abandon rule specfically lays out who (a unit composed entirely with the rule), what (a move after shooting), and when (a shooting attack at a unit within 12"). It's a shooting attack. The rules for Overwatch states speficially that it is a shooting attack. This question seeks to change a core rule of the game (that Overwatch is a shooting attack). Why?

In a game where you have now a giant 50 dog unit with IC's that can charge turn 1 that have a footprint that covers the entire board, or a ThunderwolfStar that has 50 attacks and auto-passes Hit and Run with a 2+ Rerollable Cover Save that is immune to psychic powers, is it that game-breaking to have a unit be able to avoid being charged? Seriously?

There is literally no rhyme or reason to how they come at these poll questions..

Heres a good one that was missed and is actually a big deal, @ LVO ITC made a liberal ruling on Skathach WK and use of Webway Generator. Why wasn't that put up to a vote?